who can be elected? part I
Aug. 3rd, 2004 12:15 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
winterbadgerA post yesterday about write-in candidates and a post today about eligibility to be a state's representative in federal government got me thinking about two issues.
To what extent do people still feel it is important for the president to be a "natural-born citizen" of the United States? To me, someone who is a naturalized citizen and has resided in the country for many years is liable to be just as loyal and devoted a servant of the people and devoted to the interests of the nation as a whole as any person who was born to citizens of the Untied States or to parents who happened to be in the U.S. at the time he or she was born.
And how do people feel about the 22nd Amendment? I loathe all term limits, as I feel it cuts at a fundamental right, that of citizens to elect whoever they see as the most qualified and able person to perform an office. Alexander Hamilton made some cogent arguments against such a limitation in The Federalist Papers. I'm inclined to agree with him.
Comments?
To what extent do people still feel it is important for the president to be a "natural-born citizen" of the United States? To me, someone who is a naturalized citizen and has resided in the country for many years is liable to be just as loyal and devoted a servant of the people and devoted to the interests of the nation as a whole as any person who was born to citizens of the Untied States or to parents who happened to be in the U.S. at the time he or she was born.
And how do people feel about the 22nd Amendment? I loathe all term limits, as I feel it cuts at a fundamental right, that of citizens to elect whoever they see as the most qualified and able person to perform an office. Alexander Hamilton made some cogent arguments against such a limitation in The Federalist Papers. I'm inclined to agree with him.
Comments?
